Today the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that all parts of electronic documents, including the embedded metadata, are part of public records subject to the state public records law. That includes track changes in Word documents, information in the “properties” window regarding who created a document, and other formatting pieces recorded with a document.

In Lake vs. City of Phoenix, a police officer demoted by the city requested documents regarding his case, including the metadata so he could show that the agency had manipulated documents by backdating them. He wanted the full electronic records so he could show they were tampered with.

The court said the metadata in an electronic document “is part of the underlying document; it does not stand on its own. When a public officer uses a computer tomake a public record, the metadata forms part of the document as much as the words on the page.” The court said that agencies don’t have to save metadata, but if they do, and someone wants a copy of a document in its “native format” (e.g., a Word document), then a person can request that rather than get a paper printout or a pdf.

Good for the court. This makes it clear, in Arizona at least, that anything recorded by government that helps us understand the workings of government (or how it isn’t working), should be available for citizens to examine. That’s the whole idea of public records laws.

Find out problems in major university athletic programs near you by going after NCAA sanction records.

The NCAA this week turned over documents regarding sanctions against Florida State University following a lawsuit brought by dozens of newspapers and TV stations (see Tallahassee Democrat story). The university faces punishment because of cheating by its athletes.

The NCAA, which is a nonprofit, said its internal documents were not subject to the public records law because it is not a government agency, but the courts said the records pertain to official government business regarding a state-funded institution, so they are public under Florida’s law.

So what does that mean to you if you don’t live in Florida? After all, that precedent applies only to Florida – such records might not be deemed public in your state. Well, the first step is to seek records directly from your public university (Florida State already had released the records). You can mention the Florida case, including the massive amount of negative publicity (nationally) against Florida State, and that might break it loose. Also, if the records are general in nature, covering the whole nation, you might be able to team up with a Florida journalist to request them from the NCAA through Florida and then localize it to your area.

The bottom line: If there are major problems going on at your local university, the public should know about that. Common sense often prevails, as it did in Florida.

The Association of Health Care Journalists and SPJ are fed up with federal agencies’ use of public information officers to chill the flow of information. The two groups sent a letter this week to the FDA urging the agency to stop requiring interviews between reporters and government employees to be approved by PIOs and attended by PIOs.

This practice has become widespread throughout all levels of government, and it needs to stop. While PIOs play an important role in answering questions and facilitating interviews, they are hampering the flow of information when acting as delaying middle-men or go-betweens. Having information transmitted through a middle person is hearsay and fraught with accuracy problems – a disservice to the public.

If you cover an agency that practices this form of information control, don’t put up with it. Request that the higher-ups put an end to it. And if they don’t see the importance of direct communication, then circumvent the Big Brother channels and talk to people directly, as journalists must do to ensure accuracy. It’s our duty to get it right.

Here is the letter sent to the FDA this week (thanks to Kathryn Foxhall from the Association of Health Care Journalists for coordinating this effort – she did an outstanding job):

To the FDA Task Force on Transparency:

The organizations below, representing thousands of journalists, strongly urge the Food and Drug Administration to end practices that restrict the flow of information to the public. The free flow of information is essential to democracy. But in matters of health, even more is at stake: the ability of citizens to live healthful and productive lives.

We object to the requirement that journalists and FDA employees notify or obtain permission from an official to conduct an interview. And we object to public information officers listening to interviews. These relatively new practices hinder reporters’ ability to learn the truth by inhibiting and sometimes barring employees from providing essential information.

Nearly all prior administrations allowed open communication between agency employees and the media. The FDA should restore this policy.

Public information officers can play an important role in answering questions and facilitating interviews. But when they forbid, delay or monitor contact between reporters and employees, they interfere with the public’s right to know and can delay access to timely information necessary to protect and advance public health. Usually the most accurate information comes from federal employees closest to the facts, not a go-between. These practices are a disservice to Americans.

In keeping with President Obama’s promise to make government more transparent and accountable, we hope FDA will end these harmful practices and restore the free flow of information.

We are happy to discuss this letter further with you.  To follow up, please contact Kathryn Foxhall at (301) 779-8239 and kfoxhall@verizon.net.  We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Association of Health Care Journalists

Society of Professional Journalists

According to the Student Press Law Center, Illinois state attorneys have subpoenaed the grades, grading criteria, class syllabi, notes, off-the-record communication and other documents from Northwestern’s The Innocence Project. The student journalists have been investigating the case of Anthony McKinney, who was convicted of murdering a security guard in 1978. The Innocence Project students found evidence that suggests McKinney was wrongfully convicted. Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez maintains the students do not qualify for the reporter’s privilege, and if they are going to act like investigators, they have to turn over everything.

Let’s not forget that this is the same state’s attorney’s office that argued college journalists were subject to prior review and censorship under Hazelwood. This seems to be a clear case of intimidation, and the state’s hoping that the college students will fold under it. This is an inexcusable assault on the First Amendment by prosecutors who seems to be afraid to admit they may have sent the wrong man to prison.

Harvey Levin, founder of TMZ, said at a meeting of the Southern California Radio & Television Association this week that he is outraged at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for obtaining his phone records in an attempt to find out who leaked news of Mel Gibson’s 2006 drunken driving arrest.

“This is like ‘Chinatown.’ It’s disgusting,” he was quoted in a story in LA Observed.

He’s right. Police are prohibited by law from searching journalists’ newsrooms, notes, or other personal effects. While some people sneer at celebrity gossip, his organization breaks stories and commits acts of journalism. We should support the rights of all news gatherers to do their jobs free of intrusion from police.

President Obama continues to ignore his promise of transparency and appear as secret as his predecessor. This is very disappointing. Some examples from the past few weeks:

• The White House denied the watchdog group Judicial Watch access to its visitor logs, even though Obama agreed to publish the logs online and even though a federal court ruled that the records are public (see details at the Reporters Committee). The president can’t follow his own promises or even the courts. Is he above the law?
• Negotiations over the health-care bill are being conducted in secret even though he has said in the past that the sausage will be made in public so everyone knows it isn’t being finagled by special interests. Obama’s health-care team is hashing out the details behind closed doors with members of Congress, according to a story by The Washington Post. The public already has questions about the health-care proposals, so keeping the process secret will breed more suspicion.
• Obama will likely to sign into law a bill he pushed to hide photos showing abuse of detainees in U.S. custody (see story). Because the photos are public records the president got Congress to pass a special law this week making them exempt from FOIA. This opens up a door for the government to hide information that it predicts will make others think badly of us. Wow. Releasing the photos will not endanger American lives (the argument Obama is making). Our enemies already want to kill us, and they already know we’ve done bad things to detainees. A few photos aren’t going to make them hate us more. On the other hand, by being up front about our transgressions we will build allies and trust in this country that supposedly stands strong in principle and character. This FOIA exemption makes Obama and the United States appear sneaky, hypocritical and cowardly. Bad move.
• The latest tiff between Fox News and the White House illustrates a general lack of backbone by the administration and disregard for accountability, openness and a free press. Sure, Fox has a conservative agenda and spends a lot of air time attacking the administration. Some would argue that Fox espouses hatred, bigotry and lies. Yes, it’s “opinion journalism,” as the White House claims, but so is a lot of other journalism (and wasn’t American journalism founded on political leaflets espousing particular viewpoints?). It’s still news, or at least a form of news for a segment of the population, even if it comes with spin. To deny Fox access because of its point of view is a dangerous way of thinking. It’s good that the White House reversed its decision, and will allow Fox access, but it still is bothersome that access could be denied because of an organization’s viewpoint. Regardless of one’s political views, the overriding American principle we should remember is that all voices should be heard and provided access to information, even if they are wacky, unpopular, and (especially) if they are critical of government.
• The White House intervened in the federal shield law in an attempt to make it much weaker. Things were moving along fairly well in Congress and now the administration might derail the whole effort. We’ll wait to see what they come up with as they negotiate (in secret).

Now, I don’t expect Obama to open up all of government and turn 180 degrees from the previous administration, but come on. Actions are not consistent with promises. As of yet, I’m not sure this new administration is much more open than the Bush Administration, and that’s saying a lot. Other scholars are expressing similar concerns (see an excellent analysis of the weaknesses in the Holder memo by Daniel Metcalfe). It still is not too late to change course. That was the promise, right? Change.

The military ditched its recent policy changes that prohibited embedded photographers from taking photos or video of soldiers killed in action (see Congressional Quarterly story). Kudos to the military command for recognizing the dangers of prior restraint. It’s difficult to spread freedom to other countries when you’re censoring your own press.

Looking for something to get you thinking about FOI? Grab two videos for a weekend secrecy fest, popcorn optional. These also can make for a good chapter gathering or newsroom bash:

Secrecy. This 2008 documentary by Harvard professors Peter Galison and Robb Moss looks at the culture of secrecy in the U.S. government and how it actually threatens American lives. It features some FOI big dogs, such as Thomas Blanton and Steven Aftergood. No car chases or vampires, but it will make you think. If you can’t find it at the video store you can buy a copy online for $25 at http://www.secrecyfilm.com.

Rendition. This 2007 film staring Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin and Jake Gyllenhaal centers on the story of Khalid El-Masri, who was locked away in secret by the CIA and tortured even though he was innocent. El-Masri is discussed in the movie Secrecy too.

Looking for other journalism movie ideas regarding secrecy and FOI? Here are a few:

Good Night, and Good Luck (2005). Edward R. Murrow takes on the bullying Joseph McCarthy. Fighting for press rights and civil liberties.

The Killing Fields (1984). International correspondents cover the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the United States’ secret bombings.

The China Syndrome (1979). A television crew discovers safety cover-ups at a nuclear power plant. The movie was released 12 days before the real-life nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania (An expert in the movie says that a nuclear reactor meltdown coudl “render an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.” Spooky).

The Insider (1999). 60 Minutes has the power to expose the secrets of the tobacco industry, thanks to a whistleblower (Russell Crowe). But do they?

The Parallax View (1974). Warren Beatty stars in this movie as a journalist uncovering a mysterious corporation and seedy politics.

Control Room (2004). A documentary about how news coverage of Iraq was manipulated by the government.

Erin Brockovich (2000). Shows the power of public records to dig up information to help a community. Anyone can expose corruption with enough tenacity.

The Fog of War (2003). Documentary focuses on the life and decisions of Robert S. McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense for Kennedy and Johnson. Delves into the rules of war and secrecy.

Thirteen Days (2000). Story about JFK’s decision-making process during the Bay of Pigs. Shows how the press can be played like a fiddle to hide secrets, including the potential start of nuclear war.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006). Documentary looks at Nixon’s secret campaign to silence John Lennon.

Wag the Dog (1997). Demonstrates how spin doctors can control the media and public opinion (creation of a fake war).

The Running Man (1987). An Arnold Schwarzenegger science fiction action flick based in a futuristic totalitarian society where the government keeps secrets and manages the public through television. The DVD includes two short documentaries, one on the loss of civil liberties since 9/11 and the other on reality TV replacing news programming.

The military revised its policies on photographing and filming soldiers who are killed in battle. Embedding journalists “will not be prohibited from viewing casualties,” however, the military is prohibiting the dissemination of any visuals that show a face or other identifying feature. Any information about wounded soldiers can be released (in text or photos) only if the soldier provides prior written consent.

This revised policy for embeds, updated Thursday, is still unacceptable. Think of the most powerful images in history that impacted people – how many of those were blurry or pictured people as unidentifiable statistics? The coverage of war should be truthful, even if it is sometimes unpleasant.

A new agreement that journalists must sign to accompany troops prohibits photos or video of any U.S. troops killed in action, and journalists shall not even write about the deaths (or even wounded soldiers) until the government says so.

So much for the embed program.

This policy is out of line. The government’s continued effort to control the message and spin the news has reached new heights. The policy appears in response to The Associated Press publishing the photo of a dead Marine. This isn’t about protecting troops, or respecting the privacy of the dead or their relatives – it’s about managing public opinion and keeping American citizens from seeing the realities of what is going on. War is deadly, and hiding that fact distorts reality.

Let’s put this new policy into perspective by looking at other requirements:

* Reporters can’t ask any questions about “politics,” which they illustrate with examples such as military funding and equipment readiness. That is politics?

* Interviews and photos of detainees is strictly prohibited (and I thought prison rules were bad).

* Reporters not only are prohibited from taking photos and video of killed soldiers, but also of damaged vehicles (privacy invasion of a dented Jeep)?

This agreement is intolerable. This isn’t serving journalism or the American public – it serves the public relations arm of the military. To do real journalism, reporters now must go on their own, at extreme danger to themselves, or forego coverage of U.S. actions oversees. From the military’s perspective, this is a win. But the American public, left in the dark and manipulated, loses.